Cinestill 800

CMoore · May 27, 2017

I had forgotten i had a roll of this. I kind of wish i had not, but i just stuffed it into my Canon Sure Shot 80.
Anyway.....if a person were to use this film in a SLR, is it recommended to set the meter at 800.?
I ask because i have read all kinds of different opinions....400,500,800,1600, etc etc.
And then, how do you develop the film, or what do you tell a lab (the darkroom for instance) when you send it to them.?
Thank You

rpavich · May 27, 2017

CMoore said:
I had forgotten i had a roll of this. I kind of wish i had not, but i just stuffed it into my Canon Sure Shot 80.
Anyway.....if a person were to use this film in a SLR, is it recommended to set the meter at 800.?
I ask because i have read all kinds of different opinions....400,500,800,1600, etc etc.
And then, how do you develop the film, or what do you tell a lab (the darkroom for instance) when you send it to them.?
Thank You

I had a roll or two and as I recall, it wasn't quite 800, more like 640 or so.
As for the developing, its always the same no matter what film speed is being processed.
If you have to check a box in the form, then check 800.

macfred · May 27, 2017

I shot a few rolls @Iso 640 (mixed lightning conditions) - C41 lab developement for box speed.

Lotus MK IX 1955 - 1 by Andreas, on Flickr

Lotus MK IX 1955 - 4 by Andreas, on Flickr

Vintage Lotus - 2 by Andreas, on Flickr

Tyrell / Cosworth Double Four by Andreas, on Flickr

Nikon F4 - Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8

CMoore · May 27, 2017

Wow...those look Fabulous.!
That last frame, is that a real Ken Tyrrell F1 car.?

macfred · May 27, 2017

CMoore said:
That last frame, is that a real Ken Tyrrell F1 car.?

I really don't know ...

The story behind :
I'm not familiar with cars and I never did a driving license ... I usually go by bicycle or bus.
It was a boring sunday afternoon when my brother-in-law (a car enthusiast) persuaded me to see the garage, where he often hangs around http://britec-motorsports.com/
I shot a few rolls with my F4 - that's what I got.

Another legendary (my bro-in-law said so ...) race car from the garage :

Porsche 956 St. Bellof by Andreas, on Flickr

CMoore · May 27, 2017

Its just not fair.....not fair at all, I tell you.
Yes, one might say it was legendary.
Anyway.....those came out Great IMHO.
Thank You for participating.
I Appreciate It

Rudeofus · May 28, 2017

As you probably know, Cinestill 800 is Kodak Vision III 500T stock without the remjet backing. This means for full shadow detail you should shoot it at EI 500 in tungsten balanced light or about EI 320 in daylight. As any film, it can be pushed and pulled. It is a low contrast film, which means overexposure won't hurt it much.

Running it through standard C-41 process means several things:

It's a cross process with an incorrect color development agent (CD-4 instead of CD-3), so colors could look off.
It's a push process, which means contrast will be back to normal and shadow detail might be a tad better
It can be done with standard kit chems or in standard minilabs, both of which are not trivially available for ECN-2 process.

If you have no ambitions to run it through ECN-2 process, I'd recommend you expose it just like you'd expose a regular ISO 640 color negative film, run it through C-41 process and enjoy the results. Most of these "unfixable" color defects can be trivially corrected in digital post processing, so don't worry too much about #1.

mhanc · May 28, 2017

interesting that the remjet has been removed somehow by CineStill.

anyone know of a lab that does ECN-2 processing for still-shot cine films -- including films with remjet?

Cholentpot · May 28, 2017

Rudeofus said:
As you probably know, Cinestill 800 is Kodak Vision III 500T stock without the remjet backing. This means for full shadow detail you should shoot it at EI 500 in tungsten balanced light or about EI 320 in daylight. As any film, it can be pushed and pulled. It is a low contrast film, which means overexposure won't hurt it much.

Running it through standard C-41 process means several things:

It's a cross process with an incorrect color development agent (CD-4 instead of CD-3), so colors could look off.

It's a push process, which means contrast will be back to normal and shadow detail might be a tad better

It can be done with standard kit chems or in standard minilabs, both of which are not trivially available for ECN-2 process.

If you have no ambitions to run it through ECN-2 process, I'd recommend you expose it just like you'd expose a regular ISO 640 color negative film, run it through C-41 process and enjoy the results. Most of these "unfixable" color defects can be trivially corrected in digital post processing, so don't worry too much about #1.

I shoot 500T without the REMJET removed and from my experience without an 85B filter is is slightly over ISO 500 more around not quite 800 but closer to 650-700. It's a fully capable film even when developed in C-41.

Rudeofus · May 28, 2017

Film makers spent considerable amount of effort during the last few decades to formulate archivally stable dyes, and small differences in molecular structure can have disastrous effects a few dozen years later. CD-4 is not an improved version of CD-3, but a quite different molecule, and this difference will translate directly into different dyes. The result is more than just a "small difference in molecular structure", so you are basically on your own.

I am firmly convinced, that Cinestill never bothered testing C-41 processed Vision III 500T for long term stability, and probably won't even as much as shrug, if you discover faded dyes after twenty years.

Amfooty · May 28, 2017

I really like cinestill--its a little tricky to color grade but I really like how it looks. I normally shoot it at 250 which sort of turns it from tungsten to daylight.

Monument Valley by Alex C, on Flickr

xpan-cinestill-500t-005test2 by Alex C, on Flickr

Rudeofus · May 29, 2017

Shooting it at EI 250 doesn't change its color balance, but the red channel is no longer underexposed in daylight, therefore colors can be corrected through simple filtration. It's the complementary thing to shooting Portra 400 at EI 100 in tungsten light.

rpavich · May 29, 2017

Rudeofus said:
Shooting it at EI 250 doesn't change its color balance, but the red channel is no longer underexposed in daylight, therefore colors can be corrected through simple filtration. It's the complementary thing to shooting Portra 400 at EI 100 in tungsten light.

Ahh...I think a light bulb just went on in my head. Are you saying that to get better/proper colors indoors that film should be shot at a different EI? I noticed that many films have that recommendation of shooting in daylight at a different ASA than indoors.

Rudeofus · May 29, 2017

Depending on the kind of color balance of your film, red and blue channels have different sensitivity. Tungsten light has much more red than blue light, therefore a tungsten balanced film must be more sensitive to blue light. If you expose a tungsten balanced film in normal daylight, it will receive less red light than it expects. If you overexpose it (i.e. shoot ISO 500T film at EI 250), its red sensitive layer will receive enough light to get good shadow detail. Its blue channel will be overexposed, but this doesn't matter with modern color negative film.

It's similar with daylight balanced film in tungsten balanced light: it receives less blue light than it expects. If you overexpose it (e.g. shoot Portra 400 at EI 100), then its blue layer will be correctly exposed, it's red channel will be overexposed with no adverse effects.

Most scanner software automatically corrects color inbalance, therefore you likely won't even notice anything until you enlarge optically.

rpavich · May 29, 2017

Rudeofus said:
Depending on the kind of color balance of your film, red and blue channels have different sensitivity. Tungsten light has much more red than blue light, therefore a tungsten balanced film must be more sensitive to blue light. If you expose a tungsten balanced film in normal daylight, it will receive less red light than it expects. If you overexpose it (i.e. shoot ISO 500T film at EI 250), its red sensitive layer will receive enough light to get good shadow detail. Its blue channel will be overexposed, but this doesn't matter with modern color negative film.

It's similar with daylight balanced film in tungsten balanced light: it receives less blue light than it expects. If you overexpose it (e.g. shoot Portra 400 at EI 100), then its blue layer will be correctly exposed, it's red channel will be overexposed with no adverse effects.

Most scanner software automatically corrects color inbalance, therefore you likely won't even notice anything until you enlarge optically.

Hmm...interesting, thanks!

trendland · May 29, 2017

mhanc said:
interesting that the remjet has been removed somehow by CineStill.

anyone know of a lab that does ECN-2 processing for still-shot cine films -- including films with remjet?

Sure you will find a lab wich is able to
develope still films in ECN 2 - but this
is not the best economical way.
I got a simular problem with digital restauration (cinefilm) in the past. (Before Photoshop was on the market )

The minute for film was not too expensive
( $135,-) but the calculation was to a minimum of 10min. So I'd to pay $1350,- to my 3'min50".
In addition an order flat of $280,- !!!
So you will have it with a roll cinestill
in a comercial ECN2 lab.

with regards

trendland · May 29, 2017

Rudeofus said:
Shooting it at EI 250 doesn't change its color balance, but the red channel is no longer underexposed in daylight, therefore colors can be corrected through simple filtration. It's the complementary thing to shooting Portra 400 at EI 100 in tungsten light.

Yes - thats all absolute corect. But I have an idea of - that proffessionals are still working with cinefilm (not very lots are remaining) don't care so much on the characteristics of these emulsions.
In the past it was different - of cause.
But today ? That's a little sad - still photographers using this type of emulsion with most respect - filmakers
don't care so much.They care in their
advicement to digital transfer and the focus after this is to artificially (color)
looks.
I've heard from some that they use
500T as a standard.
It is indeed the film of most demand.
With E.I. 400 / 500 / 800 / 1000 / 1200 / 2000 !
Well - and I am absolute no friend of this.

What I like is 50D (of cause in daylight)
"The fine weather condition film"
in regard to very High Resolution.
As I am corect the last time in use in greater ammounds of 50D was in
"Jurasic World"...leastwise!

with regards

MultiFormat Shooter · May 29, 2017

mhanc said:
anyone know of a lab that does ECN-2 processing for still-shot cine films -- including films with remjet?

I've heard Dead Link Removed will, for $16.00 per roll. Probably best to call/email them and ask, though.

film_man · May 30, 2017

Rudeofus said:
It's the complementary thing to shooting Portra 400 at EI 100 in tungsten light.

Aha! Thanks for that!

trendland · May 30, 2017

MultiFormat Shooter said:
I've heard Dead Link Removed will, for $16.00 per roll. Probably best to call/email them and ask, though.

Yes - of cause : Colorlab will be able to handle this stuff (Cinestill) - I don't know how it works - if they have daily/weekly
demands of processing 35mm Cinefilm
400ft/1000ft
(I can not imagine if the demand is at this rate) - they may have to cut your
simple Cinestill Film between.

They price (if it is correct ) seams to be
fair (very very fair) - but I personaly would try an own developement to ECN2.

with regard

Cinestill 800

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency